Jeremy Clarkson unhinged

[Nearly Sane]

This is from Clarkson's column in the Sun. Bad enough that he as a gibbering fuckwit would write it. I wish I could be surprised that the Sun would print it.

[Harrowby Hall]

I wonder if he realises that many people think exactly the same way about him?

[Nearly Sane]

I wonder if he realises that many people think exactly the same way about him?

Then they would be as unhinged as he is. I pity him. The Sun is a worthless rag.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I've never read anything by Jeremy Clarkson before. I Googled it rather than log in to read the attachment in the OP.  I didn't find his article on Meghan but I came across his Sun article about being mistaken for Piers Morgan:

I WAS stopped in the street this week by a Qatari gentleman who thanked me profusely for the speech I’d made defending his country and its right to hold the World Cup.

Naturally, I was very flattered but as he went on and on about how kind I’d been, I was racking my brains and couldn’t remember ever having made a speech about Qatar or the World Cup or what I thought about either.

And then, suddenly, it dawned on me.

He’d mistaken me for Piers Morgan.

The poor man’s probably at home now wondering why, as he showered me with praise, I started to try to cut my own head off.

I skimmed the rest of Clarkson's Sun column that the above was in and it was all similarly daft in terms of humour attempting to be biting I guess. I did smile at the line "I started to try to cut my own head off". I don't think his statements are meant to be taken seriously - he seems to write columns to make himself sound stupid based on what I just read.

But agree that it's not funny when the violent images are directed at someone else rather than at himself. Obviously, he knew he would get a backlash for his comparison of Meghan Markle to Cersei Lannister in GoT. It was shocking enough when it was in GoT.

That's the nature of the game though. Clarkson and Markle are both in it for the publicity, faking outrage or publicly mocking sensibilities that they know will hit a nerve, presumably in the hope of generating column inches. Both acting their little socks off as they have overheads and mortgages to pay. Both playing personas to generate much-needed income to fund their lifestyles in the public eye.

Ok Meghan's act is to beat your brains out by staring into the camera with the doe eyes, the quavering voice, the pauses, the tears, the fake giggles, the hints at racism, the make stuff up as you go along because it makes a good story for TV, which may be more appealing to some than Jeremy's oaf act.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

HAhaha - I just found the article https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/20782114/harry-meghan-netflix-series-truth/

Jeremy's oaf act is pretty funny in certain places in the article:

WE all know in our heart of hearts that Harold Markle is a slightly dim but fun-loving chin who flew Apache helicopter gunships in Afghanistan and cavorted around Las Vegas hotel rooms with naked hookers.

But then along came Meghan, who obviously used some vivid bedroom promises to turn him into a warrior of woke.

And now it seems that she has her arm so far up his bottom, she can use her fingers to alter his facial expressions.

[jeremyp]

This is from Clarkson's column in the Sun. Bad enough that he as a gibbering fuckwit would write it. I wish I could be surprised that the Sun would print it.

It’s obviously hyperbole.

[Aruntraveller]

It’s obviously hyperbole.

It may be.

Does his target audience recognise hyperbole?

Or even know what it means?

And before you point out the obvious, yes, I am being patronising about Sun readers.

They deserve it.

PS There are various rumours circulating about the closeness of Camilla and Jeremy and that they met at some dinner/function just before he published his "article". I love a conspiracy theory.

[Nearly Sane]

It’s obviously hyperbole.

yYes, it is. That doesn't stop it being unhinged.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

It may be.

Does his target audience recognise hyperbole?

Or even know what it means?

And before you point out the obvious, yes, I am being patronising about Sun readers.

They deserve it.

PS There are various rumours circulating about the closeness of Camilla and Jeremy and that they met at some dinner/function just before he published his "article". I love a conspiracy theory.

I'm with you on the conspiracy. I reckon Camilla is secretly running MI6 and Jeremy is one of her agents. Charles has no idea. Jeremy was driving the Fiat Uno that murdered Diana to clear the way for Camilla to become Queen.

'Clarkson's Farm' is just a cover that Jeremy is using to learn to train hens. I reckon before the coronation Meghan will be fleeing paps in the grounds of her mansion in Montecito and mysteriously fall into her hen-house and be pecked to death.

[jeremyp]

It may be.

Does his target audience recognise hyperbole?

Or even know what it means?

And before you point out the obvious, yes, I am being patronising about Sun readers.

They deserve it.

PS There are various rumours circulating about the closeness of Camilla and Jeremy and that they met at some dinner/function just before he published his "article". I love a conspiracy theory.

It's a nothing burger. Clarkson writes in his usual over the top style and people get outraged. Maybe it's therapeutic.

[Udayana]

...
Maybe it's therapeutic.

For Clarkson himself maybe ... but why subject Times/Sun readers to his rubbish? I notice that Laura /kuensberg had the Sun editor, Victoria Newton, on her show yesterday morning but absolutely no mention of Clarkson's (imo fake) tirade. 

[Aruntraveller]

It's a nothing burger. Clarkson writes in his usual over the top style and people get outraged. Maybe it's therapeutic.

I really don't think it is a "nothing burger".

We live in a country with significant levels of domestic violence against women.

Now is language like this A) More likely to encourage men to use violence, or

B) more likely to stop them using violence?

I know it is challenging to prove a direct correlation between speech & violence, but you really have to ask what the purpose of this article was.

Clarkson and his editor need to reflect on this episode and ask themselves what effect they were trying to achieve. From the "nothing burger" response I'm assuming you think they weren't really trying to achieve anything other than possibly winding people like me and others up.

And yet we should really place that writing in the context of these figures:

https://www.endviolenceagainstwomen.org.uk/data-on-violence-against-women-and-girls/

It's not a nothing burger - it's a burger that's full of maggots that Clarkson is trying to force down our necks.

[jeremyp]

For Clarkson himself maybe ... but why subject Times/Sun readers to his rubbish?

Presumably, the editor of the Sun thinks he will entertain their readership and perhaps attract more.

I notice that Laura /kuensberg had the Sun editor, Victoria Newton, on her show yesterday morning but absolutely no mention of Clarkson's (imo fake) tirade.

Of course it was fake.

[jeremyp]

I really don't think it is a "nothing burger".

We live in a country with significant levels of domestic violence against women.

Now is language like this A) More likely to encourage men to use violence, or

B) more likely to stop them using violence?

I know it is challenging to prove a direct correlation between speech & violence, but you really have to ask what the purpose of this article was.

Clarkson and his editor need to reflect on this episode and ask themselves what effect they were trying to achieve. From the "nothing burger" response I'm assuming you think they weren't really trying to achieve anything other than possibly winding people like me and others up.

And yet we should really place that writing in the context of these figures:

https://www.endviolenceagainstwomen.org.uk/data-on-violence-against-women-and-girls/

It's not a nothing burger - it's a burger that's full of maggots that Clarkson is trying to force down our necks.

The bit about parading through the streets naked was a reference to a scene in Game of Thrones where exactly that happened to one of the major characters.

If you are concerned about how such scenes encourage domestic violence, you should first take your complaint to the makers of the TV series.

More food for thought: what if the same article had been written about Katie Hopkins? Would we be seeing all this manufactured outrage?

It was just a silly crappy article and it really deserved to be just forgotten about. Instead, we have massive manufactured outrage and many more people have read it than would otherwise. I think we've been trolled.

[Nearly Sane]

The bit about parading through the streets naked was a reference to a scene in Game of Thrones where exactly that happened to one of the major characters.

If you are concerned about how such scenes encourage domestic violence, you should first take your complaint to the makers of the TV series.

More food for thought: what if the same article had been written about Katie Hopkins? Would we be seeing all this manufactured outrage?

It was just a silly crappy article and it really deserved to be just forgotten about. Instead, we have massive manufactured outrage and many more people have read it than would otherwise. I think we've been trolled.

I know lots of women who are outraged by this and it's not manufactured.

And they would have said the same if it had been Katie Hopkins.

[Aruntraveller]

I'm one of the few not to have seen GoT, so I know nothing of it, although I understand it is fiction with fictional characters.

Yes if it was Katie Hopkins I would hope so. I would be just as concerned. I hold little or no sympathy for Markle but this is just unacceptable, to say it is a silly crappy article is correct but missing the point. Clarkson and his editor are not stupid people. They wanted a response that would draw attention to the article. They made this happen. They are responsible.

[ad_orientem]

I haven't watched GoT either. I think you're both right, in a way. Clarckson is a dick and deliberately tries to be outrageous and thus deserves little attention but then we also have to take responsibility for our words. The dick defence isn't always acceptable. Where the line between the two is to be drawn is a bit more difficult to define.

[Nearly Sane]

From Clarkson's daughter

[ad_orientem]

From Clarkson's daughter

👍

[Nearly Sane]

And a classic non apology apology


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-64029690

[jeremyp]

And a classic non apology apology


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-64029690

Why are you calling it a non apology apology? It's not even an attempt to apologise.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

The bit about parading through the streets naked was a reference to a scene in Game of Thrones where exactly that happened to one of the major characters.

If you are concerned about how such scenes encourage domestic violence, you should first take your complaint to the makers of the TV series.

I think the reference to GoT is cleverer than I first thought. It satirises the plotting and machinations in the Palace against the Netflix duo as claimed by them in their 'documentary' or as some like to call it - the Netflix work of fictional drama to entertain the public (bit like The Crown and GoT). The Harry and Meghan brand needs the oxygen of publicity to pay their overheads. As does Jeremy, Netflix, the Sun, public figures commenting etc etc. Jeremy, with his article, has given Meghan and Harry, Netflix, himself and the Sun publicity. The public continue to lap it up and are entertained - they seem to get some satisfaction out of being outraged.

If you think about it, within GoT you have multiple warring courts competing and hatching plots to claim the Iron Throne and Cersei Lannister plotting to be Queen and retain power and using different men to do her bidding. You have the manipulation of the citizens of Kings Landing to jeer and throw things at Cersei. Her downfall after she made the mistake of giving too much power to the High Sparrow in trying to defeat her enemies and ultimately the High Sparrow turned on her. Comparing the current, manufactured, media-hyped war between the Montecito pair and the British monarchy to GoT is kind of funny, now I think about it.

More food for thought: what if the same article had been written about Katie Hopkins? Would we be seeing all this manufactured outrage?

The GoT reference wouldn't work if it was about Katie Hopkins rather than about the monarchy.

It was just a silly crappy article and it really deserved to be just forgotten about. Instead, we have massive manufactured outrage and many more people have read it than would otherwise. I think we've been trolled.

Yes - the Sun knew what the reaction was going to be and that was their intention. I took Jeremy's "hate" to be hyperbole and tongue in cheek - I doubt he is sad and mindless enough to actually hate Meghan. He may hate what she represents. But you never know I suppose. I don't know much about the guy, other than seeing him on Top Gear.

I think the world is a more interesting place with  this kind of material in it, that shocks us and provokes thought and debate. But yes I see the point of the people speaking out because of violence against women. Yes there will be lots of people who won't think and will be encouraged by this article to hate others and just continue with their mindless misogyny and glorification of violence against women.

[Nearly Sane]

.... The public continue to lap it up and are entertained - they seem to get some satisfaction out of being outraged.



... But yes I see the point of the people speaking out because of violence against women. Yes there will be lots of people who won't think and will be encouraged by this article to hate others and just continue with their mindless misogyny and glorification of violence against women.

Not sure how you reconcile these 2 parts of your post?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Not sure how you reconcile these 2 parts of your post?

Ah - I should have said that some of the public lap it up and are entertained. Others are not entertained and are commenting on valid social issues. Different sections of the public are reacting for different reasons.

It would be difficult for a piece of writing to meet everyone's needs as different sections of the public want different things from 'news' articles. Some people don't care about facts or whether a story is true - they just want their beliefs reinforced or to be entertained, which is the segment the Sun appeals to.

[Nearly Sane]

Ah - I should have said that some of the public lap it up and are entertained. Others are not entertained and are commenting on valid social issues. Different sections of the public are reacting for different reasons.

It would be difficult for a piece of writing to meet everyone's needs as different sections of the public want different things from 'news' articles. Some people don't care about facts or whether a story is true - they just want their beliefs reinforced or to be entertained, which is the segment the Sun appeals to.

Thanks for the clarification. Surely though that just underlines that the people who were actually outraged by the writing are correct in your view.